Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to talk about H.R. 2, the Republican proposed tax plan. By proposing H.R. 2, House Republicans are prompting a reckless tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans. Despite their efforts to deceive Americans, this tax cut will not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In California, 47 percent of taxpayers would receive less than $100 from the Republicans' tax plan, while the average tax cut for the top 1 percent of California taxpayers would be $35,940. The Republican proposal offers virtually no benefit to the average American. Even more alarming is that Republicans propose gutting critical programs that many Californians rely on, like Medicare, Social Security and education, to pay for the so-called tax cut.

In addition, the Republicans' tax package will generate a record $1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Imagine what we could do with $1.4 trillion. We could be using that amount of money to shore up our ailing Social Security and Medicare programs; $1.4 trillion could be used to assist States like California who are facing enormous budget deficits. This would put a halt to increases in property taxes and to cuts in education. If we really want to stimulate the economy, we need to provide tax relief for working families, like the Democratic tax proposal does. Republicans are showing their true values and priorities by giving permanent tax breaks to the very wealthy while shortchanging America's families.

If my Republican colleagues have any regard for hardworking American families, they will heed my plea to not support H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9th and 10th of this year, the Latino Youth Leadership Institute (LYLI) will hold its 2nd Annual Latino Youth Leadership Conference and Awards Dinner.

The initial inspiration to establish LYLI came out of the participation of students, young professionals and community leaders in the annual United States Hispanic Leadership Conference (USHLC). In the spring of 1999, after receiving information about the USHLC, a small group of community leaders made a commitment to send a delegation from Orange County to the conference in Chicago. The group succeeded in raising enough money to send the largest delegation from the furthest location to the USHLC. More importantly, they have continued to send a delegation of students each year.

Early in 2001, a group of USHLC Alumni began a series of meetings to explore the possibility of organizing a youth leadership conference in 2002 and to discuss the feasibility of establishing a nonprofit organization. LYLI was created to pursue its mission of increasing civic participation, promoting higher education, and cultivating a new generation of leaders to meet today's challenges and tomorrow's expectations. LYLI was formally incorporated as a 501 (C) 3 organization in December of 2001. The establishment of LYLI evolved gradually over a three-year period of time and would not have occurred without the perseverance of numerous volunteers and the support of elected officials, corporations, government entities, labor unions, and other community organizations.

The year 2002 was a historic one for LYLI. After years of thinking, planning, and meeting, LYLI organized its very first Latino Youth Leadership Conference and Awards Dinner. Over 1,000 high school and college students attended the Latino Youth Rally and Job Fair. As a result of this conference, some of the students volunteered and registered over 700 new voters. This year over 2,000 high school and college students from throughout Southern California are expected to participate in the Latino Youth Leadership Conference.

Although LYLI's success can be attributed to many contributors, supporters, and volunteers, two individuals deserve special recognition for their willingness to involve themselves completely in the creation, growth, and development of the Latino Youth Leadership Institute. As CoFounders of LYLI, President Ignacio ``Nash'' Orozco and Vice- President Bob Martinez have worked passionately and tirelessly to build an organization that would be able to motivate, inspire and train a new generation of Latino youth to realize their full potential as leaders.

Because of the commitment and dedication demonstrated by Mr. Orozco and Mr. Martinez, thousands of Latino Youth have already benefited from the work of LYLI, and thousands more are likely to be part of LYLI's most promising future. I salute the determination of both Mr. Orozco and Mr. Martinez to stay the course and oversee the transformation of their vision of what could be to having a real, living, functioning organization capable of shaping the dreams and aspirations of our nation's youth.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, seeks to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms

or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their product by others.

The bill makes certain exceptions, however, to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers, sellers, distributors, and importers. For example, it allows a lawsuit to proceed in case of negligence per se or negligent entrustment. It also allows lawsuits for victims in certain cases where the gun seller or manufacturer knowingly or willingly broke State or Federal law.

My amendment would be one of the smaller exceptions to the ban on lawsuits. It would essentially do more than require gun sellers or manufacturers to obey the law that already exists.

Section 922 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code establishes that it is unlawful for any person to sell guns or ammunition to someone who uses or is addicted to illegal drugs or who has been adjudicated as a mental defective. Later on, the same section makes it illegal for drug users or abusers or persons with adjudicated mental problems to ship, possess or receive guns or ammunition that have been in interstate commerce.

This makes sense. Congress has decided that there are certain people who should not have access to firearms, and these are the two categories of people who are restricted.

Congress further decided that the responsibility for this restriction is on both the buyer and the seller. If the gun sellers and manufacturers are not checking to be sure that they do not sell guns to people with drug or mental problems, then how can we keep the guns out of their hands? That is why the U.S. Code specifically prohibits both the sale and the purchase.

I just want the gun sellers to do the proper background checks. If they do not and it turns out they sold weapons or ammunition to a person in one of those categories, then they should not have the benefit of immunity from the court system. As a matter of public policy, we should most definitely provide victims with an opportunity to take their case to court, and we should allow judges the opportunity to decide if what the gun seller did was a violation of the law.

Last fall, when there were suspicions that the Beltway sniper might have had a mental illness, the House rapidly passed a bill to enforce the already-existing law that requires the FBI to list any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective on the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. It is important to note that the bill did not create this requirement; rather, it sought to provide incentive grants to encourage the use of it.

That bill unfortunately did not pass the Senate, but that does not change the fact that this requirement already exists. If we are intent on requiring that the information be listed in the system, and if we say that gun sellers must do background checks, then how can we go wrong by holding them liable if they fail to do the background check?

Having already mentioned some of my opposition to this bill, and having tried to correct one of the many, many problems with it, I would like to talk about the egregious manner the Majority has used in moving this bill through the House.

This is a fairly partisan bill, which went through a very partisan Committee, the Judiciary Committee. No hearings were held at Full Committee. Essentially, no markup occurred either. Technically, the Committee met and we started debate on what should have been 10-15 amendments. The first one was offered and withdrawn. Shortly after we began discussing the second one, offered by Mr. Watt, the Majority called the previous question. And with that, our so-called democratic debate on an important piece of legislation ended.

The Majority has since made claims that they cut off debate because no amendments were at the desk. This is patently untrue. As I said, and as the transcript from that markup shows, we were in the MIDDLE of the debate on an amendment when the previous question was called.

I realize that the Majority wouldn't have liked a lot of our amendments, in which case they would have had the freedom to vote against then. But to not even allow debate on a topic of such divergent opinions is a disgrace. We're talking about a bill that includes findings that have no basis in fact or law. A bill that makes sweeping changes to liability, thus cutting off legitimate victims' access to the court system. A bill that rewards certain shoddy gun dealers with the same immunity that it gives to honest manufacturers who have worked diligently to improve their products.

That appalling markup happened last Thursday. Now here we are today, less than a week later, debating the bill on the Floor. But one again, a true democratic effort has been thwarted, because the Majority has only permitted us five amendments. Five amendments. Again, I'm sure that the Majority didn't like all of the amendments we offered. But that doesn't mean they are non-germane. And it's no reason to cut off debate. If that's going to be the basis for how we run this body, then we should stop claiming to be a democracy.

And, frankly, the amendments allowed today don't include all of the ``heavy'' amendments we offered. Let's be honest--my amendment has a much smaller impact than some of the other ones offered today. I think it represents an important change, but I also think there were a whole host of other important changes that could have been made--had we had a full markup, or had the Rule been an open one.

I am shocked by the complete disregard to Majority has demonstrated for the democratic process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this kind of disintegration of our free speech and our democratic process. Otherwise, the democratic ideals our troops are fighting for in the Middle East may as well be meaningless.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do not understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say that this case is clearly set forth in the proposed legislation, because the negligence, number one, the negligence per se doctrine, does not exist in every State, and I believe it is the citizens of those States who deserve the kind of protections included in this amendment.

The other exception that is stated in this bill is for knowingly or willfully violating Federal or State law, and it requires a conviction, and that does not apply here either. That implication or that state of mind, that mens rea, requires a specific mens rea, whereas my amendment here only includes a reasonable cause to believe standard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important to clarify something that was stated by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They keep talking about negligent entrustment, but negligent entrustment liability only applies when someone knows that person is going to commit a crime. However, this amendment specifically speaks to a different type of mens rea. It speaks to the reasonable cause to believe standard. It does not require, as the current bill stands, the mens rea of knowingly or willfully, plus a conviction, in order to hold these distributors and manufacturers liable.

I think the purpose of this amendment is strictly as an incentive to make sure that sellers and manufacturers and dealers are actually doing the criminal background checks that the law already requires of them; and again, I am talking about having a reasonable cause to believe that somebody is either addicted to drugs or has been mentally adjudicated as incompetent.

I think that requiring a higher standard of proof in terms of the intent of the seller or the distributor, plus a conviction, denies legitimate plaintiffs the right to sue in civil court, and so I would urge my colleagues to please support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is part of the bill. My understanding it is a definition in part of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say no, I believe it is applied on a case-by-case basis under tort law.

Well, if the intention is to cover the incidence that I am talking about, of dealers or sellers or manufacturers who have reasonable cause to believe, why not state that intention clearly in the legislation?

My understanding is that the negligence per se definition section in the bill does not state those cases.

So we agree to disagree, in other words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I just want to say that if we had had the opportunity to bring these amendments up in subcommittee and to discuss them at length, I think we probably could have come to some agreement in terms of what cases we chose to cover by this piece of legislation and which cases we did not.

However, we were not afforded that opportunity because the question was called and debate was cut off. Now we find ourselves here on the floor of the House debating amendments, a scant five, when we had 10 to 15 to offer in subcommittee. This, in essence, cuts off the democratic process, which in essence does not give us the chance to meaningfully consider the amendments as a way to improve this bill.

I urge that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I stand before Members today outraged at the disgraceful treatment of our Nation's veterans. While some may disagree with the United States' decision to lead the charge against Iraq, all would agree that the men and women putting their lives on the line deserve our unwavering support. These volunteers deserve respect not only during times of war, but also when they return home.

The administration has spent a great deal of time showcasing our proud troops, but that same administration is attempting to make cuts to health care and other benefits that impact our veterans. Unless this body takes action, many veterans will be financially responsible for paying for the injuries they receive as a direct result of their sacrifice in defending us and our values.

This is hypocrisy at its best. What kind of message does this send to our troops? It says that we appreciate them putting their lives on the line when we need them, but we cannot offer them that same assistance when they need us.

House Concurrent Resolution 95, the budget resolution that recently passed the House, would require an across-the-board cut of 1 percent in mandatory appropriations for veterans programs. This budget would cut compensation for service-connected disabilities and education benefits and other health care funding by $14 billion over the next 10 years.

In addition, while the Bush budget anticipates an increase in the number of veterans eligible for compensation due to service-connected disabilities, the budget does not add one dime for benefits for additional disabilities and deaths.

As an American, as a patriot, and as a Member of this esteemed body, I encourage all Members to support the efforts to restore the funding cuts in mandatory spending for veterans benefits. Our past and future veterans deserve the respect and gratitude of this Nation. The least we can do is take care of them when they return home from defending our American values.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the United States is filled with heroes who, through personal sacrifice and a strong commitment to their cause, have left their mark on society. Today, I am proud to honor the life and accomplishments of California's own, the late, talented union organizer, Cesar E. Chavez.

Born on March 31, 1927 to a farming family in Yuma, AZ, Cesar learned early that life is filled with challenges. He was ten years old when his family lost their farm during the Depression. By 1938, the Chavez family joined thousands of others following the crops throughout the Southwest, eventually making it to California. It was during this period that Cesar began to realize that he and the other migrant workers not only lived in deplorable conditions but also were treated as second-class citizens.

After his tour of duty in the U.S. Navy at the end of World War II, Cesar returned to California with his wife Helena to continue farming. In 1952, he met Fred Ross, an organizer for the Community Service Organization (CSO). Cesar flourished as an active member of this organization, conducting voter registration drives, battling racial and economic discrimination, and organizing new CSO chapters across California and Arizona. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Cesar became the national director of CSO. But no matter how hard he worked, he continued to have trouble persuading workers to fight for their rights because they were afraid of losing their Jobs.

In order to fulfill his desire to create a union for farm workers, Cesar left his position with the CSO in 1962. He traveled from camp to camp recruiting workers. With the assistance of his family, he managed to organize 300 members into the National Farm Workers Union, NFWA, later changed to the United Farm Workers, UFW. Through Cesar's leadership, the UFW gained the national support of unions, church groups, students, minorities, and consumers.

Cesar's commitment brought dignity and respect to the farm workers who organized themselves and became an inspiration and a resource to other Americans and people engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world. His fast in 1968 for 25 days prompted the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy to call him ``one of the most heroic figures of our time''.

From 1965 through the 1980s, Cesar led numerous strikes, boycotts, and protests--not only to increase wage earnings at the time, but also to increase public awareness to the plight of the migrant workers. During the 1980s, the number of farm workers working under UFW contacts rose tremendously, allowing them to enjoy higher pay, family health coverage, pension benefits and other contract protections.

Cesar E. Chavez worked until his death on April 23, 1993, defending the rights of farm workers to the end. Even now, his spirit and legacy continue to be studied and rewarded.

On August 8, 1994, Chavez became only the second Mexican-American to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States. Also, in that same year, his family and officers of the UFW created the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation to inspire current and future generations by promoting the ideals of Cesar's life, work, and vision.

The State of California honored his life and work in 2000 by proclaiming March 31 as Cesar E. Chavez Day. California dedicates the remainder of the week to paying tribute to the great union leader by teaching elementary and secondary school children about his work. I am also honored to announce that I am an original cosponsor of House Resolution 112, which will establish a national legal public holiday in honor of the great social justice leader.

Today, Cesar E. Chavez would have celebrated his 76th birthday. I am proud to celebrate his life and work. May his spirit and dedication continue to be an inspiration to those engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 2003, Aurelio Palomares, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy, will be retiring after 32 years of distinguished county service.

Deputy Palomares was born in Leon, Mexico in 1948, and, three years later, immigrated to the United States with his parents. After becoming a United States citizen, Deputy Palomares enlisted in the U.S. Army and served as a medic from 1969 to 1971, until he was honorably discharged.

After his tour of duty, Deputy Palomares began his career with Los Angeles County as a security officer in 1971. Aspiring to be a deputy, he joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1980.

Since then, Deputy Palomares has received 23 commendations throughout his career with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and has served as a bilingual bridge between law enforcement and the Spanish speaking community in Los Angeles County.

On April 8, 1985, he was commended after handling a bank robbery in which the suspect used a handgun and stole over $4,000. Using his uncanny ability to remember names and faces of suspects, Deputy Palomares reviewed the surveillance video and recognized the suspect as an inmate he had seen in the Los Angeles County Jail a few years before. Deputy Palomares provided the suspect's name to investigators, who subsequently arrested the suspect.

In 1986, Deputy Palomares was commended by the Mayor of Artesia, Robert Jamison, for his ``consistent willingness to do more than what is required of him.'' Mayor Jamison also praised him as a ``symbol of dedication to the department''.

On June 2, 1989, Deputy Palomares was commended for his assistance in the apprehension of a Paramount gang member who had gotten into a shootout with deputies.

In 1994, Deputy Palomares was again commended, this time by the father of a drive-by shooting victim who wrote that Palomares' professional treatment of his son ``calmed him and left a lasting and positive impression''.

On March 19, 1996, he was commended by the Department of Corrections for ``demonstrating exemplary service and dedication'' in apprehending convicted felon parolees and for keeping ``public safety in the forefront of his dealing with parolees and the community''.

In 2000, Deputy Palomares was commended twice, once by a citizen for the caring and compassionate way he handled a rescue call in which a child was injured. The second commendation arose from his ``prompt response and professionalism'' that led to the arrest of a burglary suspect who had fired a handgun at the victim.

Throughout his career, Deputy Palomares has continuously demonstrated his dedication to his profession, community, and family. Deputy Palomares, who is affectionately called ``AP'' by his colleagues, has succeeded in having a close-knit family with his wife, Susan, their daughter, Sara, and son, Michael. As a family, the Palomares family regularly takes to the open road in an RV and visits all parts of the United States and Canada. On the road, he is sure to be tuned into National Public Radio, a station he listens to religiously while on duty.

From one public servant to another, I praise Aurelio Palomares for his valor in the face of danger and for his service to the community.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 975 because it is a harsh, one-sided bill. As we all know, our country is in the midst of a very difficult economic period. According to the Department of

Labor's figures, the unemployment rate for February 2003 was 5.8 percent. Mr. Chairman, 308,000 people lost jobs in the last month alone.

In addition, we have larger and larger numbers of military personnel being sent overseas in anticipation of a possible war with Iraq. They sacrifice their time and energy and put their lives at risk for the sake of our country. Many also sacrifice their salaries. Often, Reservists who are called up take a substantial cut in pay. Despite efforts to adjust their finances, some families will not be able to cover all of their costs. Those families may need to turn to the bankruptcy system.

Ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by one of the following three events: job loss, unforeseen medical expenses, or divorce. Yet the rules of this Draconian bill in H.R. 975 are so restrictive that people who really need the system are lumped together with people who have possibly abused the system in the past.

Large numbers of groups oppose H.R. 975, including the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers. They are concerned that the harsh changes to Chapter 11 bankruptcies will cost jobs by forcing more businesses into liquidation. In addition, these groups are concerned that the bill's consumer bankruptcy provisions will hurt people because it squeezes families so hard in favor of credit card companies.

Opposition also comes from a whole host of groups concerned about women and children, while supporters of this bill argue that it has a series of provisions to assist women and children. If this were the case, then organizations such as the National Organization for Women, the California Women's Law Center, and the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support would all support the bill. In fact, they all oppose the bill.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 975 does much more harm than it does good for women and children. One of the worst aspects of this bill is the fact that it places women and children in direct competition with more aggressive creditors such as credit card companies.

H.R. 975 is also opposed by groups concerned about minorities, senior citizens, and victims of crimes. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the National Center for Victims of Crime are just a few of the organizations that have spoken out against this piece of legislation.

Minorities are often subjected to discrimination in home mortgage lending and in hiring and firing decisions and are more highly targeted by predatory lending. As a result, minorities will more often be forced to consider the bankruptcy system as a means to stabilize their financial circumstances.

The elderly face increased risk of job loss and catastrophic health care costs, again meaning that more of them will have to explore bankruptcy as a possible option.

As for victims of crimes and torts, the National Organization for Victim Assistance has noted, ``More exempted creditors with rights to the same finite amount of resources means lower payments to all. Inevitably, for victim creditors, that means either a smaller return on the restitution owed, or a longer period of repayment, or both.''

Most troubling is the fact that this bill, which makes such severe change to debtors' rights under the bankruptcy system, makes almost no changes whatsoever to creditors' rights and responsibilities.

This bill fails to address the fact that credit card companies solicit people who are not creditworthy in the first place. We should be instituting measures to ensure that the credit card companies do their homework before extending credit. We should require parental consent before students under the age of 21 can obtain credit cards, unless there is evidence to show that the student is financially solvent. In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) sought to offer an amendment with a very similar goal, but her amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.

It is time for Congress to recognize that this bill is too flawed to serve the American people. We must look carefully at the long-term consequences and at the current economic conditions, and then craft any bankruptcy reform legislation in a way that is fair to consumers and creditors. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time, and today I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.

There is no doubt that most Americans have real problems accessing affordable health care in this country, and we need to find a solution. However, H.R. 5 is a deplorable bill. It is the most simplistic method for addressing problems that we are experiencing with our medical community. It is akin to trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

Placing a cap on a victim's recovery will not magically keep medical malpractice insurance rates from rising. It will not keep trauma centers from closing. It will not keep specialists from practicing in their areas. H.R. 5 simply restricts injured patients' access to justice. It is modeled after a California law affectionately known as

On November 30, 2002 David Alan Powell, a true hero and proud father was taken from us in the line-of- duty.

That night, an Artesia residence was fired on by armed gang members. A fleeing suspect forced his way into an occupied home. Deputy David Powell, doing one of the things he loved to do, risked his life to save the life of another. Within a matter of seconds, Deputy David Powell was taken from us. The lives, hopes and dreams of his family were changed forever.

David's heart was filled with love and his whole purpose in life was to make a difference. David entered the sheriffs academy, Class 221, on January 19, 1984. After graduating from the academy he was assigned to custody for three years where he worked both Men's Central Jail and Pitchess Detention Center. In 1987, he was assigned to Firestone Station. In 1988, he transferred to Lakewood Station, and he earned the reputation of being dedicated and hard working. In the communities where David worked, everyone knew him. Children would wave to him and call his name. He loved children and he loved helping people.

In November 2000, David was presented the Valor Award by the City of Lakewood for saving the life of an elderly male who was attempting suicide. In 2002, he was one of several law enforcement officers who tried to save the lives of three individuals that had crashed their car following a pursuit. As a result of the crash, the car erupted into flames and for several long minutes, David fought back flames as he and others tried desperately to remove the critically injured passengers from the car. His heroic efforts resulted in his nomination for another valor award. Unfortunately, he won't be here to receive it.

David was a Christian and attended the Lawndale Christian Church his entire life. His love for his family and faith were evident everywhere. David applied his values to all that he did, and he believed in God's plan for him. David and his wife met at church and married in January 1990. Although Emma had three children from a previous marriage, David loved and cared for them as though he was their father. As their daughter Alicia shared, ``He was my Daddy . . . the only dad I knew. He was the happiest man. He always had a smile on his face.''

He also was a loyal man who loved his job. Just this past Thanksgiving, David shared with his family that with his seniority, he could easily ask to leave patrol and be assigned to a desk. However, he loved his car, Unit 134T1, so much so, he couldn't bear the thought of transferring inside and leaving the patrol car, and the job that brought him so much fulfillment and satisfaction in helping others.

Shortly after leaving the hospital on the day of her father's death, seven-year-old Brianna Powell wrote a note to her dad: ``I love you dad. I know you will always be in my heart. I wish you were still down here with all my family. I will never forget you. I wish you were still alive.''

I commend David Powell for his valor and service to his country.

Born: May 27, 1960.

Entered Department: January 18, 1994.

Killed in the Line of Duty: November 30, 2002.